/sci/ - Science & Math

This is the brainlet attitude.

You cant just ignore all the data that is continuously being presented to you.

Make a judgment right now, without gathering any more data. Do you personally think climate change is real or not? Why?

>>10237125
bait somewhere else

Ofc it does cause change in the temperature. It is a greenhouse gas. It absorbs the sun's radiation and heats up the atmosphere

correlation does not imply causation

>>10237110
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fviqo-_3_4M

>>10237125
>climate change
>>>/x/

>>10237110
If you want to understand the science behind this you need to understand radiative forcing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

>>10237155
>>10237110
1. CO2 and many other gases have "greenhouse" properties in that they allow visible light to pass through (hence invisible), but trap and re-emit infrared radiation. This is literally 19th century science, first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, verified and quantified experimentally beyond reasonable doubt by Svante Arrhenius.
2. CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising, and this is a result of fossil fuel combustion (pic related). CO2 can be measured experimentally in the lab, and the stable isotopes of CO2 plunges into the negative values. Fossil fuel has distinct negative isotopic signature compared to natural CO2. This is also an undeniable fact from observation.
3. You add 1+2, you would expect the radiative energy budget of the earth to be out of equilibrium. This is exactly what we observe, based on satellites that measures total energy in vs. energy out by CERES satellite at NASA.https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.phpOn average, only 71% of energy entering the Earth is leaving. 2nd law of thermodynamics and conservation of energy states that when a system had energy imbalance, T must go up.
In short, CO2 causes greenhouse effect. Humans put CO2 into the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning. The earth is now in energy imbalance due to additional CO2, and therefore warming. All basic, high school physics that should be easy to understand

>>10237464
you got me up to
>T must go up
the earth is not a kettle and I would contest your implication with such a complex system. it might yes.

>In short, CO2 causes greenhouse effect.
ok
>Humans put CO2 into the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning.
ok
>The earth is now in energy imbalance due to additional CO2, and therefore warming.
ok, how much?

>>10237523
>ok, how much?
About 4 Watts per m2

>>10237531
and how much % is due to human made co2?

>>10237464
/thread

This thread is over now. You can hide it.

Hello, is this the climate change denier roleplaying thread?

>>10237553
for a brainlett like you maybe

>>10237559
no one is denying that the climate is changing. how retarded can one be. jesus christ

>>10237537
The climate has been relatively stable since 10,000 years ago, the Holocene period/last interglacial. This means that the net balance during Holocene preindustrial period was about 0 W/m2 otherwise earth would've warmed up.

Suddenly people start pumping greenhouse gas to the atmosphere and then our sattelites show energy imbalance on the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA).

Therefore the answer is all of them. However this is a simplistic answer because humans also have cooling impacts on the total radiative imbalance because we emit particulate aerosols. The answer to "how much T increase is manmade and due to CO2 emissions" is actually more than 100%

A new statistical approach to climate change detection and attribution. Ribes et al. 2016

>Consistent with the last IPCC assessment report, we find that most of the observed warming over this period (+0.65 K) is attributable to anthropogenic forcings (+0.67 ± 0.12 K, 90 % confidence range), with a very limited contribution from natural forcings (−0.01±0.02 K).

>>10237567
Not bad, keep it up. You're really living the role

>>10237569
There's mounting evidence that the Holocene Optimum that shows up in the proxies has been biased by marine records. The models predict constant warming since the end of the ice age and it's looking like the models are accurate.

>>10237601
>There's mounting evidence that the Holocene Optimum that shows up in the proxies has been biased by marine records
That is not true at all. Holocene Optimum is pronounced also in the ice core records and tree rings. Just to pick up one example
https://www.pnas.org/content/114/23/5952 and pic related from the paper.

There's no such thing as constant warming since end of the ice age. Holocene has been stable in for about 10k years. What do you mean "biased" by marine records?? Again if you cannot prove what's wrong, there's no reason to remove the marine proxies as opposed to tree rings or ice cores.

If anything the holocene was unusually long for an interglacial, and people think it because of the "early anthropocene hypothesis" that rice farming in asia emitted CH4 and kept the earth warm since 3000-4000 years ago, otherwise we would've gone back to glacial period

>>10237569
stable? this doesnt look stable to me.

>>10237619
Where's the error bar bro? Check out the actual paper.

The actual error on Alley et al. 2000 was +-3C from borehole T reconstruction in GISP2 ice core. David Lappi the climate denier happen to pick an imprecise proxy that extend back to 18ka, plot only 0-9ka and the 0 there is like 1900s calendar year.

Dont buy the denier meme

>>10237640
>>10237619
BTFO

>>10237618
I'm not a climate denier btw this has nothing to do with anthropogenic warming.
I'm a grad student in the field and it's what I've been reading about for my project. The northern hemisphere proxies are apparently biasing the stack because the northern hemisphere was supposedly experiencing the most of the warming.
There are recent papers in Science by Marsicek et al. and Shaun commenting on this, as well as Liu et al. 2014 Conundrum paper on PNAS.
I just find this really interesting because it BTFO deniers that say the Holocene was as warm as our anthropogenic warming.
Wanted to comment on that since you seem knowledgeable about the subject.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25464

>>10237665
>biasing the stack because the northern hemisphere was supposedly experiencing the most of the warming.
But it's global. Northern hemisphere is just affected to most noticeably because less ice and more land. Less thermal buffer capacity amirite?

>>10237665
Shakun and it's on Nature, not Science. My bad

>>10237665
I'm a data person so I tend to trust Shaun's reconstruction of global T, and many other data based reconstruction more than models.

The "Holocene Temperature Conundrum" to the best of my understanding is that PMIP (Paleoclimate Model Intercomparison Project) saying that they cannot reconstruct the Holocene Temperature Optimum. It is a model-data mismatch.

The modelers argument was that oh maybe Shaun's data was biased because there are more NH proxies (which is true) but you cannot disprove a negative. The Marsieck paper you pull out was like "hey we have one local tree ring proxy that agree with the model, Marcott et al. BTFO" but that's not how global temperature proxy reconstruction works.

You need to systematically say what's wrong with certain proxies and why they should be excluded. You need to mention why your particular proxy deserves more weight compared to other proxy.

Overall, IMO the bulk of data still lean towards the existence of Holocene optimum.

>>10237640
>Where's the error bar bro?
that's a good question. where is the error bar in all the shitty climate models you base your implication on? even more funny to me that all those poor scientists are under heavy pressure to release data that shows that there is human made climate change. Halleluja to the new religion.

>>10237708
>get BTFO, move the goalpost

>where is the error bar in all the shitty climate models you base your implication on?
There you go

>>10237724
>fit a model to old data
>thinks that is any good for prediction in such a complex system
you made me chuckle

>get BTFO, move the goalpost
it's not me who cant prove his implications and just expects me to take him at face value. you cant even show that the extra energy turns into a rise of temperature. you have nothing.

>>10237744
You're not gonna say anything about posting misleading figure with no error bar? >>10237619
that get instantaneously BTFO

>>10237676
Are you confusing Jeremy Shakun and Shaun Marcott? They're buddies but they're completely different people lmao

>>10237744
move the goalpost again. SAD

>>10237754
well done. you BTFO the first pic from google that showed 10000 years back. but it doesnt even matter because your graphs show similar changes.
"stable" is a misleading term when the changes of temperature can be massive if you increase the resolution enough.

>>10237764
yes I moved it back. and still no answers. that is sad indeed.

>>10237768
>yes I moved it back. and still no answers. that is sad indeed.
Kek the absolute state of climate denier, trusting the first figure coming off google, get BTFO, admitting to moving the goalpost.

>you cant even show that the extra energy turns into a rise of temperature
See A new statistical approach to climate change detection and attribution. Ribes et al. 2016

I'm here all day. Are you gonna try to educate yourself or just be a contrarian in Cambodian fly fishing imageboard

>>10237705
I come from a geology background so I also tend be wary of modelers. Now I work on paleo-climate reconstruction from marine sources, and development of new SST proxies.
I don't doubt the Marcott stack is done with a careful methodology, but Liu shows that it's possible that the NH alkenone records could over represent warming by capturing seasonal temperatures instead of mean SST (that's an issue for the sediment core people). Furthermore Liu shows that the alkenone records are the main source of the cooling trend in the stack, and can apparently recreate it in their model runs (pic related).
Also, the Marsieck paper uses 642 pollen records for their reconstruction, not a single tree ring record.
It would be nice if we could correspond through email

>>10237778
holy shit you cant give single answer but when you get pushed you just hide behind papers. you probably didnt read it most certainly dont understand the maths behind it and use it as a shield in the hopes no one else does. jesus christ are you a retard

>>10237781
Neither Shaun or I come from marine geology background, we're both ice core scientist. Sorry I misrepresented the Marsieck study I had read that it was pollen but some reason I typed out tree rings. I think Shaun decided against using pollen in his stack because it is not very quantitative.

If you're interested you can email Shaun directly, he's very approacable and he's not some 60 years old ivory tower bigshot, he's incredibly supportive of early career scientists and grad students because he was in your foot just 4 years ago as a grad student with uncertain future.

>>10237796
>but when you get pushed you just hide behind papers
When get pushed just hide behind peer review studies. Sure mang. Either you do your due dilligence in doing some background reading or stop talking.

>>10237819
that's nice. maybe link a peer reviewed feminist Glaziologe paper too. really makes for a strong argument when discussing a topic.

>>10237824
The editor of Progress in International Geography is a feminist theory professor in History department.
>Widely regarded as one of the most significant titles in its field, Progress in Human Geography provides a rigorous, critical appraisal of geographical work in the social sciences and humanities. This renowned journal highlights theoretical developments in all aspects of: Social, Economic, Political, Cultural geography

It is soft science at best with misleading name. Climate Dynamics is a real science journal.

>>10237155
it can though

>>10237110
You know when you put black painted object in sunlight, it gets hotter than white painted object, right?
Well, CO2 is "black" in IR spectrum.
Hope that helps.

>>10237813
I'm ultimately more interested in the implications from of the sediment core records from foraminifera and alkenones and how our own data weighs in on the issue.
Our project deals with high resolution variability (seasonal, annual and ENSO reconstructions) but when looking at our extended time scales we're noticing how this data can also shed light on a deeper timescale.

>>10237853
>quotation marks
>science analogy
Give me real hard experimental observations as proof to your argument

>>10237861
IODP core?

>>10237865
No, I work on the geochemistry side of things and we use corals. We're actively working on a highly accurate proxy to open up the coral fossil record and the resolution they possess (the actual coral proxies are limited by live coral calibrations).

redpill me on the Permian–Triassic extinction event. there was like half a million of years hard assfucking by super volcanoes and all kinds of shit going down and the temperature rose by 5°? and now me driving a car is the same?

>>10237875
That's cool anon. Are you guys gonna use 14C chronology? Do you think you can pull out decadal variability within your age uncertainties?
How would coral falsify or support marine forams?

>>10237171
Can't argue with that video however, how much have we actually changed our atmospheres composition since the industrial revolution?
What are the before and after percentages?

>>10237916
We use uranium-series disequilibrium dating which can provide up to 5yr accuracy. Depending on the length of the coral we can get multi century long records with monthly resolution.

I see people cite how quickly the temperature has increased since industrialization compared to the past, but do we actually have a method to get yearly average temperature from the distant past? Do we even have the precision to tell the average temperature of a century?

What I'm getting at is, is it possible that the rapid heating we are seeing is normal? That the Earth regularly has had century-scale heating trends like this that are simply undetectable, because on a geologic timescale a century is really short?

>>10237956
>but do we actually have a method to get yearly average temperature from the distant past? Do we even have the precision to tell the average temperature of a century?

Ask this guy >>10237953 he's working on coral temperature series. Calcium carbonate in coral contains oxygen isotopes, the ratio of oxygen 18 to oxygen 16 is a proxy for sea surface temperature. They also have various other proxies such as Mg/Ca and Sr/Ca where the amount of Mg and Sr substitution in CaCO3 matrix is directly related to sea surface temperature.

You could also infer temperature from the width of tree rings (tree grow faster when warm) and pollen species (different species thrive in different temperature regime).

Finally in ice core we can use oxygen 18 to oxygen 16 ratio as proxy of snowfall temperature and the disequilibrium between Argon 40 and Argon 36 with respect to Nitrogen 15 vs. Nitrogen 14 as proxy for snowpack temperature (because gases diffuse at slightly different speed based on temperature)

>>10237861
>give me data so I can ignore it and move the goalposts yet again
OK, this is fun.

>>10237862
>give me data so I can ignore it and move the goalposts yet again
OK, this is fun.

>>10237125
>Make a judgment right now, without gathering any more data.
no

>>10237110
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as in it’s really good at absorbing and then emitting thermal radiation. This has been known since the 1800’s.

>>10237537
Human-sourced CO2 passed its closest competitor, volcanic CO2, before the First World War.

>>10237110
Ya, we cloned the universe a few million times and randomly selected a few to have an earth with high co2 and every single one ended up warmer than the universes with static earth co2 levels.

What kind of studies are you expected besides the ones that obviously correlate co2 with temperature?

>>10238320
>>Make a judgment right now, without gathering any more data that disagrees with what I want to believe
no, corporate kike-shill.